Re: MEPBM 4th age opinion

From: "T. Walko (Yes I hate spam)" <Tom@nospamjerkstroll.mv.com>

Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0000

Darrell Shieml wrote:

> I love them and will probably never play 3rd age again, except to join a
> Grudge game with a few misguided friends.

Only an opinion of mine. I am glad to hear you like them.
>
> >
> > First, there is no way a nation should be able to start with 90ish
> > equivelent agents. I can't even to begin to suggest what GSI was
> > thinking when they made that possible. In 3 games my friend has played,
> > he has seen about 6 nations (all together) destroyed in the first 3
> > turns (maybe 4) by agents of nations who ganged up.
>
> Puttng a nation OUT with assassins is very hard.  About the only way
> I've seen it done is if the nation has a large deficit, and you kill the
> players that were in the capital for NatSells.  Killing all characters
> is hard, and steals come after paying bills.
>

And the difference is? Regardless of whether you assassinate or steal or
whatever, it is still way to easy to eliminate a nation. That's bad game
mechanics.

> I have, however, seen nations drop after being pestered by assassins.
> This is a more serious concern in my mind.

I guess that is more along the lines of what I mean. Destoryed / Dropped
is the same in my book; one way or anothert, someone isn't playing
beacause of bad game mechanics.

>In fact, I'm trying to put
> together a game without assassinate or kidnap orders.  It is going
> really slow.

Well, if you had the ability to take advantage of a situation....you
know what I mean?

>
> > Also, I have heard (and have seen in 1 instance) of games where ALL the
> > neutrals go free.
>
> Was this a Grudge game.

Nope.

>I can't imagine 9 or 11 nations all making the
> same decision.  Unless, of course, one allegiance is way better at
> communication and coordination than the other.
> In my first game, a large number of neutrals went DS.  This was becasue
> they actually talked to us.  The FreePs never wrote, or even answered.
>

And I'll admit that happens in any game, not just 1650, 2950 or 4th age.

> > How is this a fair game? How is this a game?
>
> Diplomacy is part of the game!!!!

Diplomacy, to an extent. But, knowing you are going into a game at a
distinct disadvantage isnt. Again, bad game mechanics.
>
> > To start
> > outnumbered by 5 or 6 nations? And expect to win? That is not a matter
> > of diplomacy, that is a matter of bad game mechanics.
>
> It is a game because all 3 alliances are outnumbered.  The DS and FreeP
> are more outnumbered than the Neutrals, but the Neutrals to join the DS
> and FreeP.

Initially, you are correct.

>
> >
> > I would think a more reasonable system of declaring evil/free
>
> Any suggestions?  How about the lousy team gets all the neutrals that
> don't declare first??  Besides, DS and FreeP is just an Icon.  Any
> nation can have disliked relations to any other.  This means the nation
> forced to go good could still attack the good.

First nation to go evil/free has a 100% chance of success (or 95% or
whatever). Next nation to declare to the same side as the first to
declare evil/free only has a 75% chance...and so on and so on til there
is an extremely slim chance that 8 out of 10 or 10 out of 10 can go
evil/free all in one game.

As for the agent thing, start new characters at 40, maybe a "chance" at
better scouting/assassinations (as opposed to the guarranty), I don't
know. As I said, I have only seen what theresults have been, I have not
actually played a game.
>
> Is the 3rd age system any better??  Assuming you get DS of Freep, you
> are forced to be allies with 9 other players.  What if you don't like
> them?  What if you don't like their style of play??  You are stuck.  In
> the 4th age, you can build your own alliance.

Part of that diplomacy thing is being able to deal with a$$holes who
are supposed to be working with you. As you said, "Diplomacy is part of
the game".

> > and better
> > starting character equality is absolutely necessary before I even
> > remotely consider playing any 4th age game.
>
> Non-humans can start with better agents.  Mannish can start with better
> emissaries (I'd never be Elvish or Dwarvish).  The agents can do more
> damage early.  They can harass and annoy, but the emissaries is where
> the long term strength comes from.  Economic power allows for conquest.

But that is my problem with the "sysytem". You state ie very clearly,
Agents are for power early on. Get enough of them to work together fast
enough, and it doesn't make a game. It makes for a few people throwing
$12.50 away.

T. Walko

References

MEPBM 4th age opinion
"T. Walko (Yes I hate spam)" <Tom@nospamjerkstroll.mv.com>
Sun, 08 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0000
Re: MEPBM 4th age opinion
Darrell Shieml <Darrell.Shimel@MCI.COM>
Mon, 09 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0000
Re: MEPBM What do you suggest?
rwulman@aol.com (RWULMAN)
Wed, 04 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0000
Re: MEPBM What do you suggest?
reklan@aol.com (Reklan)
Sun, 08 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0000

Referenced By

MEPBM 4th age opinion
"T. Walko (Yes I hate spam)" <Tom@nospamjerkstroll.mv.com>
Sun, 08 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0000
Re: MEPBM 4th age opinion
Darrell Shieml <Darrell.Shimel@MCI.COM>
Mon, 09 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0000
Re: MEPBM What do you suggest?
rwulman@aol.com (RWULMAN)
Wed, 04 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0000
Re: MEPBM What do you suggest?
reklan@aol.com (Reklan)
Sun, 08 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0000